Not for me. I hated Mortis on TCW, still hate it now._________________All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

Those without swords can still die upon them

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:54 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1689Location: Simulation and Simulacra

Mortis absolutely changed for me after Apocalypse.

Mortis left it ambiguous as to whether or not the Avatar's of the Force were Celestial's or whether the whole thing even happened at all and wasn't just a Force vision. As a Force vision that showed Anakin about how the Force has become unbalanced, and how he would ultimately turn to the Dark Side before being redeemed and bringing balance, it fit perfectly within the mythology that we knew about.

I assumed that the Avatars of the Force were meant to represent the aspects of the Force: The Father was the Unifying Force representing the balance, his children were the Living Force which is in conflict between the Dark Side and the Light Side.

Apocalypse made it clear that the Avatars were not manifestations of the Force but were Celestial's that somehow became part of the Force by drinking from the Font Of Power, which is evidently the spot from where the Force emerges into the universe. Um, what?

Plus the whole thing with Abeloth was tacked on in a way that was never even hinted at in the Mortis episodes, total retcon. The idea that it is somehow the will of the Force to create monsters to destroy the Galaxy while creating super heroes to battle them is really stupid and I can't see that as being at all consistent with the Force Philosophy we had gotten before.

It tried to be ambiguous about it by saying oh, this is just the Killiks version of events and might not be true.. but we know that Abeloth was on Mortis and that the Avatars exist in pretty much the same way as depicted in that version, so how can it not be true? If we are supposed to doubt that, then it becomes meaningless to even talk about in the first place.

It really undermines the whole idea of the Chosen One, which is stupid to the infinite since that was GL's thing and the whole point of putting Mortis is FOTJ was to reconcile TCW with the EU and instead it just makes them conflict even more._________________Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:26 am

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6941Location: Missouri

Quote:

Apocalypse made it clear that the Avatars were not manifestations of the Force but were Celestial's that somehow became part of the Force by drinking from the Font Of Power, which is evidently the spot from where the Force emerges into the universe. Um, what?

In my recollection of the book, Denning only implied that Abeloth drank from the Font of Power to become like the other avatars. He was very cryptic about whether the avatars themselves did it to become what they were. He was also very cryptic about saying whether they were Celestials or whether they were Celestials at one time. There is a lot of fudge room in the way he stated the words. I think it was intentional so the reader could believe what they wanted. Hardly any of it was concrete.

Now Abeloth being made the mother in the Mortis mythology isn't so much a retcon as it is just additional story. TCW created it and Del Rey built upon it. I've got no issues with that, however if TCW ever comes back to it, then I'd be uneasy because continuity could get trampled on. From that stand point, what Del Rey did was risky._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:26 am

Message

WerehunterKnight

Joined: 08 Apr 2011Posts: 362

None of it from Apocalypse is concrete. They made it extremely clear several times during the book that the source of the information was completely unreliable. Though I think it was done because they knew Lucas wanted to go back to Mortis at some point and use it without locking Lucas into a set story (not that it would actually happen). So they went that route to prevent any continuity issues down the line.

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:24 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1689Location: Simulation and Simulacra

But the story of Abeloth's origins is from a million years ago, which means she was already the Mother and all that when Anakin went to Mortis, and thus the roles of the Avatars were what they were designated in Apocalypse... yet they weren't mentioned to Anakin at that time because in reality that wasn't the story at the time, it was created later to change the existing prior storyline. Yeah, I'd call that a retcon not an addition.

I say that "unreliable narrator" is crap because of the reason outlined above. It's not a new situation where we are supposed to be unsure of what it means for the current storyline which is what the plot device is meant to be used for, it's information that is added onto an existing storyline that already had it's own effect and wasn't told from the unreliable narrator POV. So which one is it? If it really is supposed to be unclear then why even put it in the book? that seems like a total copout to justify a stupid storyline and make it convenient to drop that plot point in the future and say it doesn't matter.

That's what we get as so called continuity these days. Anyway, think what you want about it... the question was if FOTJA effected our views on Mortis, so I'm just saying how I feel about it and why it does for me._________________Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:17 am

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7854Location: Sailing into the unknown

For me Apocalypse made it sink in that Mortis is here to stay. It isn't just something I can write off as TCW nonsense, it is now forced into the very fabric of Star Wars.

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

Mortis left it ambiguous as to whether or not the Avatar's of the Force were Celestial's or whether the whole thing even happened at all and wasn't just a Force vision.

The Wizard of Oz ending was the Mortis trilogy's only saving grace for me. I could only accept Mortis as an ambiguous Force vision that can be interpreted and re-interpreted (or better yet Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Ahsoka were high as kriff on death sticks and the whole thing was a fever dream). However, in Apocalypse, it would appear that it all really happened._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:54 am

Message

Mara Jade SkywalkerAdministrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008Posts: 6308Location: Beyond Shadows

Reepicheep wrote:

...(or better yet Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Ahsoka were high as kriff on death sticks and the whole thing was a fever dream)...

Oh, this would make me a very happy Star wars fan. Somehow or other._________________"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker

Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:59 am

Message

Crash OverrideMaster

Joined: 22 Dec 2010Posts: 1962

I'm bored. So I'll just drop these here:

"The Force is one, Jacen. It encompasses all opposites. Truth and lies, life and death, light and dark, good and evil. They're all each other, because each thing and everything is the same thing. The Force is one."

"You need not like someone to love him. Love is nothing more than the recognition that two are one. That all is one."

"Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."
(Some context to "God": Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God, or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god.)

"I've often been a little bit bothered by the "deification" of the Force in the EU. The Force is not God -- it's not something "out there," a unitary entity with its own will and intention. It's right here. A Jedi is part of it -- and so is everything else. Its "will" (to use an inadequate word) is expressed in existence itself."

I have to be honest, reading over the interview from which one of these quotes originated was pretty heart-breaking for me.

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:42 pm

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6941Location: Missouri

What interview?_________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

"It can be argued that Yoda trained Luke the way he did specifically to defeat the Emperor -- NOT because that's what JK were in the Old Republic. In fact, we now know that Luke would scarely qualify as a Padawan by Old Republic standards.
From my point of view, what Vergere teaches Jacen to become is far closer to what the Jedi are SUPPOSED to embody. Even Luke, remember, doesn't end up DESTROYING the Bad Guys -- instead he allows his mere presence to "save" the one who can be saved, and destroy the one who can't. (By my recollection, anyway -- it's been a few years since I saw RotJ.)
A war of Good v. Evil is better in concept than in execution. The division of reality into Good and Evil is a disease of modern civilization -- it's even infected our secular politics. It's okay for our armed forces to kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan, because we're "rooting out the Evil." From bin Laden's point of view, it's okay to kill innocent civilians in the USA (and elsewhere) for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON.
It is the responsibility of those who CAN look deeper to do so. I say: by the end of TRAITOR, Jacen is a better Jedi than he has ever been, because he has learned to LOOK DEEPER... I think SW is more about dealing with the darkness in your own heart -- Luke had to do that, in order to face Vader and the Emperor; and then instead of killing Vader he could lead him back toward the light.
I should also point out that "the Force is One." The darkness inside is reflected outside, and vice versa. What Vergere is really teaching Jacen is to seek truth within, because it will reflect truth without. To trust his feelings, you might say..."

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:31 pm

Message

WerehunterKnight

Joined: 08 Apr 2011Posts: 362

I've always felt that the new Jedi shouldn't see the Force the same way as the old Jedi did. The EU made it clear that the Empire destroyed much of the data about the Jedi and Luke's training was very incomplete. There's no way the two orders should have the same view point, and I actually think that improved overall story of the universe. Maybe that's why I never liked Vergere's teachings in the NJO and had little issue with them revealing that she was a Sith or why I didn't mind them having Luke drop that view point in later books.

As for Strover saying how a Jedi is supposed to embody, let's remember that what the Jedi embodied before the Empire helped lead to the creation of the Empire. Everyone will agree that they were heroes, for the most part. So why was it that the Emperor was able to turn the entire galaxy against them. I'd say because they held themselves above the rest of the people. They felt they didn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else because they knew better because of the Force. We know know the Force does give insights, but if I was living in the Star Wars galaxy and some Jedi came into my town and ordered people around because of what the Force told them, I'd likely dislike them.

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:34 pm

Message

Crash OverrideMaster

Joined: 22 Dec 2010Posts: 1962

Werehunter wrote:

I've always felt that the new Jedi shouldn't see the Force the same way as the old Jedi did. The EU made it clear that the Empire destroyed much of the data about the Jedi and Luke's training was very incomplete. There's no way the two orders should have the same view point, and I actually think that improved overall story of the universe. Maybe that's why I never liked Vergere's teachings in the NJO and had little issue with them revealing that she was a Sith or why I didn't mind them having Luke drop that view point in later books.

Funny, Luke's Jedi in LOTF-FOTJ have more in common with the prequel Jedi than anything Vergere ever said. Rather interesting how they became the prequel Jedi overnight with their Jedi temple on Coruscant, Jedi council, etc. Don't recall Vergere proposing any of those things.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because Stover wasn't talking about the prequel Jedi.

Werehunter wrote:

As for Strover saying how a Jedi is supposed to embody, let's remember that what the Jedi embodied before the Empire helped lead to the creation of the Empire. Everyone will agree that they were heroes, for the most part. So why was it that the Emperor was able to turn the entire galaxy against them. I'd say because they held themselves above the rest of the people. They felt they didn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else because they knew better because of the Force. We know know the Force does give insights, but if I was living in the Star Wars galaxy and some Jedi came into my town and ordered people around because of what the Force told them, I'd likely dislike them.

Again, Stover wasn't talking about the prequel Jedi when talking about what they were supposed to embody, so this is pretty much a strawman argument. Actually, doubly so, because I'm not really sure where Vergere endorsed anything that the prequel Jedi did, particularly anything that you just said.

But strawmanning Vergere seems to be pretty popular in the EU.

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:47 pm

Message

WerehunterKnight

Joined: 08 Apr 2011Posts: 362

Crash Override wrote:

Funny, Luke's Jedi in LOTF-FOTJ have more in common with the prequel Jedi than anything Vergere ever said. Rather interesting how they became the prequel Jedi overnight with their Jedi temple on Coruscant, Jedi council, etc. Don't recall Vergere proposing any of those things.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because Stover wasn't talking about the prequel Jedi.

Oh I agree, I certainly didn't like the way they moved the Jedi Temple to Coruscant or the fact they even have a Jedi Temple. I actually groaned the first time I read that. I'm talking more about her viewpoint of the Force, which seemed to be based more on the Old Republic Jedi view point than anything else we had at the time.

Crash Override wrote:

Again, Stover wasn't talking about the prequel Jedi when talking about what they were supposed to embody, so this is pretty much a strawman argument. Actually, doubly so, because I'm not really sure where Vergere endorsed anything that the prequel Jedi did, particularly anything that you just said.

But strawmanning Vergere seems to be pretty popular in the EU.

I'm not strawmanning Verge at all. In fact nothing in that part of my quote was actually referring to Verge, but rather the idea that the Jedi are supposed to act a certain way. We only have two examples to go from, the Old Republic Jedi and The New Jedi Order. To me this:

Quote:

NOT because that's what JK were in the Old Republic

suggests that he thinks the Jedi are supposed to act like what the Old Republic Jedi act. That may not be his intent, but that's how I took the part you quoted. My argument to that is that the way the Jedi acted and what they embodied in the Old Republic wasn't always the best thing.

Though I dislike how inept they've made the Jedi Council when Luke was banished, I did like the disagreements that were shown. The fact the Council never actually seemed to debate anything in the movies always bothered me and came off as questionable leadership.

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:55 pm

Message

Crash OverrideMaster

Joined: 22 Dec 2010Posts: 1962

Werehunter wrote:

Oh I agree, I certainly didn't like the way they moved the Jedi Temple to Coruscant or the fact they even have a Jedi Temple. I actually groaned the first time I read that. I'm talking more about her viewpoint of the Force, which seemed to be based more on the Old Republic Jedi view point than anything else we had at the time.

In what sense do you think that her perspective was based on that? I'd like you to elaborate, as I agree to an extent, but I am wondering if you are thinking the same thing as me, because your disapproval suggests not. lol

Werehunter wrote:

I'm not strawmanning Verge at all. In fact nothing in that part of my quote was actually referring to Verge, but rather the idea that the Jedi are supposed to act a certain way. We only have two examples to go from, the Old Republic Jedi and The New Jedi Order. To me this:

Quote:

NOT because that's what JK were in the Old Republic

suggests that he thinks the Jedi are supposed to act like what the Old Republic Jedi act. That may not be his intent, but that's how I took the part you quoted. My argument to that is that the way the Jedi acted and what they embodied in the Old Republic wasn't always the best thing.

Though I dislike how inept they've made the Jedi Council when Luke was banished, I did like the disagreements that were shown. The fact the Council never actually seemed to debate anything in the movies always bothered me and came off as questionable leadership.

Well, we are shown a different Jedi order altogether from the prequel Jedi or Luke's Jedi in Tales of the Jedi. I think most fans have forgotten this because KOTOR, which takes place about a generation later, did the same thing that LOTF-FOTJ did and reverted this to the prequel Jedi, as did SWTOR. I'm not necessarily saying that the Tales of the Jedi era Jedi embodied it either, but there's 25,000 years of history of the Jedi, and we've seen very little. I prefer to think of it as the Platonic Form or Ideal of what the Jedi is.

But I think the important thing to remember is Jacen's brief moment of apotheosis at the end of The Unifying Force, where he realizes that this inner balance he achieved was something that the Jedi had known before and lost. The prequel Jedi came after this knowledge was lost.

"Lao Tsu constantly uses water as a metaphor for the Tao - it is gentle, yielding, and always flows to the lowest accessible spot, despite the fact that over time it can cut through mountains. In The Phantom Menace, for the first time fans see Jedi not as hermits flowing to the lowest possible spots, inhabiting swamps and deserts on Outer Rim worlds, but in the position of power. The Jedi Council is at the center of government and technology in the Old Republic, two things associated with the Empire in the original trilogy. Its members sit atop a literal ivory tower, and from a Taoist viewpoint, it is a precarious place to be.

"Qui-Gon Jinn, like Chuang Tzu, elected to walk the sagely path rather than to take a seat in government and become mired in bureaucracy. He stands as a curious figure, a wise and compassionate Jedi Master, yet one who is deemed a maverick by those in power. Likewise, he seems to have a different perception of the Force altogether.

"Always confident that 'the Force will guide us,' Qui-Gon follows his own path which takes him to Anakin Skywalker on Tatooine. All the Jedi have such faith, but unlike them, Qui-Gon never lectures on the light side and the dark one. Also unique is his sense that the Force has a will of its own, which perhaps implies a conscious entity.

"Qui-Gon is closer to the Taoist sage than most of the other Jedi in the Star Wars mythology. 'Feel, don't think. Use your instincts,' he instructs young Anakin, and Lao Tsu often spoke of how the sage is guided by his feelings. Qui-Gon also views something as being true only 'from a certain point of view,' suggesting a kind of relativity essential to understanding the works of Chuang Tzu. Both of these ideas will of course be inherited by Obi-Wan Kenobi.

"It is also with Qui-Gon that the Force and the Tao most closely resemble one another, or at least best illuminate the other. Each are thought to be symptomatic of mystical realities, what might be thought of as the ground of all being. Qui-Gon's philosophy makes sense if the dual parts of the Force, like the opposing sides of the Tao, are ultimately illusionary and are transcended by a hidden, deeper agreement buried somewhere in the energy field. The light and dark sides are characterized by charity and hate, neither of which are exhibited by energy fields in and of themselves. They could best be seen as temporal manifestations of the Force in the field of action, but with an underlying harmony supporting them.

"Many have had problems with the idea of the Force having a will, both because of the light and the dark sides, as well as the personal nature it implies. Yet the will of the Force could very much be like the way of the Tao - it is the eternal aspect and therefore transcends favor of either side. It simply is. It is the part a Jedi merges with when they become "one" with the Force after death, a return to the undifferentiated source, much like in Taoism. the will of the Force might also be thought of as a Taoistic concept, that of "tzi ran," literally interpreted "of itself so." It is the action of the all-flowing universe, and as such could produce a Chosen One to bring about balance without personal intent."

There's also a popular essay by Katana Geldar written about Vergere, and how none of the EU authors really seemed to get what Stover did in Traitor:

I don't necessarily think Vergere's depiction in Destiny's Way is inconsistent, but it's been a while since I read it. Or the essay, for that matter. I know that The Joiner King completely misconstrues everything concerning Vergere, and that Luke does in The Unifying Force (by agreeing with her). And The Joiner King misconstrues Luke from The Unifying Force! It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Denning hadn't read The Unifying Force when he wrote The Joiner King.

As for how I think Vergere's perspective aligns with the prequel Jedi, I think it aligns with Qui-Gon Jinn. Of the prequel Jedi, he's the one that is completely unconcerned with the bureaucracy that the rest of the Jedi are -- and this is the thing that I am presuming that you take issue with, Werehunter. A regular Jedi would have not concerned his or herself with the plight of the Skywalkers because safeguarding the Queen and getting her to Coruscant would have been the mandated priority. The Jedi Council didn't mandate Qui-Gon to find the Chosen One on Tatooine.

I think that Luceno put some hints to this similarity of philosophy in Cloak of Deception when he wrote Qui-Gon. Heck, Vergere is in Cloak of Deception. Pretty sure that Luceno invented the character -- she appears in Rogue Planet by Greg Bear first, but I recall reading that Luceno invented her during NJO story meetings.

Anyway, there's a reason why Qui-Gon is Yoda's master at the end of Episode III. It's a shame that we didn't get the Qui-Gon side of the Darth Plagueis novel -- I think that would have provided further illumination.

Edit: Here's where I read that Luceno created Vergere:

MWStover wrote:

Tell Katana I saw the Matt Signal.

To assert that Vergere displays, or is a proponent of, any particular philosophy in Traitor is, in my opinion, a misreading of the text. This opinion, however, should not be taken as having any special significance. Your mileage may vary.

Also, for the record: as far as I know, Vergere was Jim Luceno's character originally. She does have a cameo in Greg Bear's Rogue Planet (which as we know ties in rather intimately with the NJO), but I believe she was Jim's in conception. I could be wrong -- this was, you know, a few years ago, and my brain is not all it used to be.

I have considerable affection for that character, and a great deal of pride in my contribution to her story; it was my first Star Wars novel, and by my peculiarly skewed personal standards, it's still my best. Which is why I occasionally lurk in threads about her, or about the book. And I've even once in a while ridden along on a particularly snarky Trip With Jacen Solo.

Also: for people who believe that categorical good guy/bad guy characterizations -- and handy deep-fried good/evil dichotomy -- is what Star Wars is about, well . . . I'd like you all to meet a friend of mine. His name is Anakin Skywalker.

And you know what else? Han shot first. I was there.

On or about June 15, 1977. The Fischer Theater on Vermilion Street in Danville, Illinois.

The matinee.

Not sure if the original thread is still around, only found it quoted. I read it when he posted it though!